Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 22STCV37907, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV37907, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37907 Hearing Date: October 11, 2023 Dept: 14

Instant Motion

Plaintiffs now move this court for an order permitting them to file a First Amended Complaint adding another plaintiff who lived in the building with them.

Governing Standard

“[T]he court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. [Citations]. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4^th 1422, 1428. It is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend based on delay alone; the amendment must affirmatively prejudice the opposing side. Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565. However, prejudice exists where the delay is unwarranted and the result will be additional cost for trial preparation, witness depositions, and other discovery. See Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5^th 675, 689 (citing Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4^th 168, 175); P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4^th 1332, 1345 (citing Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4^th 732, 746).

Decision

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file their First Amended Complaint within 7 days.

Defendant Landlord opposes this motion on the grounds that the new plaintiff could have been added earlier. But as noted above, delay itself is not affirmative prejudice. Nor is the mere fact that Defendant Landlord will have to defend itself against the new Plaintiff. There is no prejudice here, and no basis to deny the motion.